This post is great! I was able to identify your tone and your thoughts were very interesting. Also, your post is very organized and clear. After reading this particular post I came to learn more about your perspective on the teenage interaction with electronic devices. Because you looked at this picture as a work of art you were able to analyze it in a different way. This is why out of your post 10-14 I have chosen this post to comment on.
by looking at M.T. Anderson's work as a work of art you identified it as dedicated to the teenagers in our current society to teach them an important lesson. Instead of portraying this lesson as the typical `this is wrong and you shouldn't do it` Anderson made his work in a way to relate to the young readers in a way to make them SEE the consequences as opposed to predicting the consequences. This also causes the reader to feel more comfortable and to connect his own life with the character's for practically living in the same world. However, regardless of how well this peace of art may reflect one's life it may not cause any difference. And this is because art shows not shapes.
Similarly to you I have considered this book as an artistic reflection of ourselves. This could be because I was aware that Anderson's work was mean to be an allegory to our current world. However, it was not difficult to find a connection between this world and the one described in the book mainly because of the speaker's voice. Being a teenager who s experiencing a very similar situation to mine makes it possible for me to understand his world and relate to it.
Your post also reminds me of last year Kinory's class. We dedicated many classes into analyzing art and making connections. One of the paintings we studied was the one with all men walking up the subway escalator probably going to work. They were all facing the same direction and wearing the same clothes. It was as if they did not have a mind of their own and just doing what everyone else was doing, which is similar to feed. The characters in the book are not able to think for themselves and live life according to what they are told is best. By living this way no one is breaking the rules and going to the opposite direction of the subway escalator.
In order to expand your knowledge on this topic I recommend you to connect your ideas to more deeper examples we experience everyday. Such as seeing our surroundings also as a work of art. Specially when we are surrounded by different electronic devices and media. If you are able to identify this book as art then you should also be able to identify your life as it as well for being an allegory. And seeing it this way, we as the "creators" of our lives we could change how this image looks like. In other words we could shape our own reality as oppose to only viewing it as any other visitor in the tragic museum of life.
Also, referring back to your work, although Anderson may have done this in order for the audience to decide how to live our lives I still think that our options are very limited. Yes we may indeed be able to shape our lives after learning how these look like, but I do not think we have the tools necessary to do so. In other words, analyzing this book or analyzing our lives might actually not be enough to make a difference, which is similar to your hammer and mirror idea. I agree with you that it may not even be possible for a mirror to be a hammer, so what do you think we could do in order to change this tragic image of our lives? Should we simply accept the way things are and not do anything about it because we are simply too limited? Or do you think is just an excuse to remain the way we live because we actually like it?
After reading your post I began to consider art differently, specially paintings. I have studied art in the past and I have always found it interesting and communicative, but I have never actually seen how meaningful it is to the creator. As a viewer, if I do not find any relatedness to the painting I do not care about it, but If somehow I find it related to my own life then I find it interesting and meaningful, as if it was telling me something important I was not aware so far. I had the same experience with feed. However, regardless of what the painting may look or communicate it is still something important for someone else. That painting is just one part of a bigger one and it should be appreciated for representing something. But I am aware, even more after reading your post that, art is simply a reflection of something else for me. I do not think that beauty will be able to change anything due to the fact that I considered most things around me as beautiful. I may actually not know the definition of beauty but I do know where it lies, and still is not enough.
Lastly, I would like to truly thank you for writing this post. I really like knowing what you think and I find it very interesting every time. You make me think about things I did not consider before, and although this may take me no where I still appreciate it. Great work!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Richard:
This is a really nice post! I specially enjoyed how you stated Johnson's opinion on television and video games and provided clear examples to understand his point. I understand that you read the long version of the article, and I think you summarized it very well. Your use of tone and language is clear and I can identify your voice on this post.
I understand that you base your discussion on the comparison between books and television and Johnson's view on video games. Currently we are surrounded by all kinds of electronic devices that run our lives. While M.T. Anderson considers this event as tragic, you argue that Johnson actually thinks it will help us in our lives at some degree. As you said, "Although he didn't type it, or I didn't read it, he compares watching television to reading a book, how you follow a complex story but with images, and he then compares games to questions or puzzles and you have to solve them with given information." In other words, there could be a general misconception on what playing a video is or watching TV is. Johnson argues that watching TV or reading a book may actually not be that different from one another. This is because people have a very similar experience while reading a book or watching a movie. However, when reading a book we improve our intellect by developing skills, which cannot be the same from watching a movie.
In order to expand your knowledge on this or to make your post better, I recommend you to take a side. Who do you think is right, Anderson or Johnson? And would you actually begin to think differently after adopting one of their ideas on electronic media? I recommend you to apply both of their theories into your own life and predict how it will look like. By doing so you will have a better understanding of their point and make a decision. If you have previously experienced playing video games and watching TV for hours and consider it as wrong, then why do you originally decided it was "wrong"? If you really enjoyed it then it must had felt right for you at some point, but wasn't society the one that told you that it was actually wrong and therefore you labeled it in such way. This could cause you to be bias against what Johnson has to say. I simply recommend you to be open minded about this entire situation (not labeling what is right or wrong) and choose what is best for you.
After reading your post I began reconsidering the general definition of the effect of playing video games on people. I do not entirely agree with the general idea of how most people think gamers think like. Similarly to Johnson, I consider that gamers face more challenging problems than simply getting across the river. Yes the main goal may be getting across it but there is more to do than simply finding a simple way of doing it. As Johnson said there is a list of different things one must overcome in order to achieve this goal. It is more like solving a puzzle and being strong enough to go across that river. And by that alone as a gamer you must think of strategies. Therefore, similarly to a book, by figuring out the best way to get across the river is just developing one personal skill. Therefore, I personally agree with Johnson that what video games and TV offer is much more than what is generally thought of. However, I do know that these are harmful to one's life in the long run. So, I would ultimately have to agree with Anderson and his idea of our lives being a tragedy. And as much as I enjoy playing video games or watching T.V. or the skills I may develop by doing so, do not reward the incredible amount of time I invested into them. In other words, I have wasted my time.
Once again I would like to say that this was a really nice point. You have me a lot to consider and ponder about. Also I appreciate all your hard work and dedication to this specific assignment. Out of all your assignments from 10-14 I found this to be a summary of your main ideas for involving such strong opinion on electronic media from Johnson and Feed. Great work!
No comments:
Post a Comment